=========================
The Anti-Crackpot Index
By Philip Gibbs
http://blog.vixra.org/2010/09/13/the-anti-crackpot-index/
=========================
I am sure you are all familiar with the Crackpot Index devised by John Baez as a “fun” way to identify “crackpots”. Now there is also a growing phenomenon of the anti-crackpots, that is people who go to enormous trouble to try to debunk other people’s theories but instead of using solid arguments they produce a useless diatribe laced with rhetoric, sarcasm and irrelevant ridicule. I think it is now time to redress the balance and produce the anti-crackpot index as a fun way to help identify such people, so here it is:
The Anti-crackpot index
1. A -5 point starting credit
2. 1 point for claiming a point is “vacuous” or “specious” without saying why.
3. 2 points for referring to other people as “the public” or “laymen” without having any relevant qualifications beyond highschool themselves.
4. 3 points for dismissing an extensive theory because of one minor error.
5. 5 points for each statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.
6. 5 points for suggesting someone is not a real scientist because they did not use TeX.
7. 5 points for each use of the word falsifiable.
8. 5 points for gratuitously pointing out that a person they are attacking is Female.
9. 10 points for saying that someone is taking mathematics too literally.
10. 10 points for telling a scientist or mathematician that they should leave philosophy to the philosophers.
11. 10 points for claiming that any correct idea can easily be published in a peer-reviewed journal or the arXiv.
12. 10 points for invoking a strawman argument.
13. 10 points for believing that any good idea will instantly be recognised as such by the scientific community.
14. 10 points for claiming that someone is a crackpot because they will not listen to reason, when in fact the position is mutual.
23 more points here...
http://blog.vixra.org/2010/09/13/the-anti-crackpot-index/
THE JOHN BAEZ CRACKPOT INDEX
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
HAHAHAHAHAHA
I'm not sure whether I should be amused or horrified.
I'm not sure whether I should be amused or horrified.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 14 2010, 07:18 PM)
HAHAHAHAHAHA
I'm not sure whether I should be amused or horrified.
Amused.
I know I am.
I'm not sure whether I should be amused or horrified.
Amused.
I know I am.
It is shrewd, creative, and absolutely brilliant. I love it!
===============
Attention Moderator:
"UNBELIEVABLE"
===============
You've just gotta love this type of feedback in the context of the topicality...
fivedoughnut_ Posted: Sep 15 2010, 05:18 PM
Negative Idiot from Dumbsburg Kookling.
From the anti-crackpot Index...
#27 20 points for using an anonymous pseudonym when your opponent is using their real name.
Cheers,
RAPHIE FRANK
917-202-2610
P.S. For the pedantishly oriented, my actual full name is "Stephen Raphael Frank"
P.P.S. And as a gratutous aside to certain posters upon this forum who may or may not recognize themselves:
#28 20 points for saying they always own up to their errors because they were forced to do it once.
Attention Moderator:
"UNBELIEVABLE"
===============
You've just gotta love this type of feedback in the context of the topicality...
fivedoughnut_ Posted: Sep 15 2010, 05:18 PM
Negative Idiot from Dumbsburg Kookling.
From the anti-crackpot Index...
#27 20 points for using an anonymous pseudonym when your opponent is using their real name.
Cheers,
RAPHIE FRANK
917-202-2610
P.S. For the pedantishly oriented, my actual full name is "Stephen Raphael Frank"
P.P.S. And as a gratutous aside to certain posters upon this forum who may or may not recognize themselves:
#28 20 points for saying they always own up to their errors because they were forced to do it once.
Excuse me, but did you just post your phone number?
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Sep 17 2010, 02:47 AM)
Excuse me, but did you just post your phone number?
I sure did. I've little to "hide," Nymphaea Albea (with my SS# as a notable, but certainly not isolated, exception...).
Transparency is at least one antidote, in my view, to the politics of anonymous disparagement.
Do a Google search for my full name and you will see I've more than a little bit of an historical track record on this point...
Cheers,
Raphie
I sure did. I've little to "hide," Nymphaea Albea (with my SS# as a notable, but certainly not isolated, exception...).
Transparency is at least one antidote, in my view, to the politics of anonymous disparagement.
Do a Google search for my full name and you will see I've more than a little bit of an historical track record on this point...
Cheers,
Raphie
To each his own, but geez, there are people in here with schizophrenia.
You know, cranks…
who like to make crank calls.
You know, cranks…
who like to make crank calls. QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Sep 17 2010, 03:10 AM)
To each his own, but geez, there are people in here with schizophrenia.
You know, cranks… who like to make crank calls.
Look at it this way, NA...
That would be legally actionable... Calling names and/or being close-minded is not.
Best,
Raphie
You know, cranks…
who like to make crank calls. Look at it this way, NA...
That would be legally actionable... Calling names and/or being close-minded is not.
Best,
Raphie
I suppose, but if you are shrewd, it can be refuted.
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Sep 17 2010, 03:19 AM)
I suppose, but if you are shrewd, it can be refuted.
Hey NA, here is a repost from a "read-only" section of the site that I can not properly quote, but the same manner of issues were involved then as now...
=======================================================
=======================================================
Posted: Oct 3 2008, 02:36 AM
QUOTE (Derek1148 @ Sep 8 2008, 02:00 AM)
===========================================
Raphie Frank,
Do you believe it is wise to post personal information about yourself?
===========================================
Dear Derek1148,
First and foremost., one of my goals is to get across that there are real people behind these screens. Without that awareness we become a bit like bomber pilots with the ability to destroy without having to directly witness the devastation we cause, or perhaps, even more apropos, we become like video game players who live in a solipsistic virtual fighter pilot universe that includes noone but the self.
I do see your point, however, and in many circumstances would deem it unwise.
Suffice it to say, however, that I believe wisdom to be relative and contextual.
Best,
Raphie
=======================================================
=======================================================
P.S. Let's just let this go, okay? If one can get suspended from this forum for simply stating mathematical facts, who knows what wrath I may incur for actually voicing that which I would be first to acknowledge as an opinion, however morally held...
Hey NA, here is a repost from a "read-only" section of the site that I can not properly quote, but the same manner of issues were involved then as now...
=======================================================
=======================================================
Posted: Oct 3 2008, 02:36 AM
QUOTE (Derek1148 @ Sep 8 2008, 02:00 AM)
===========================================
Raphie Frank,
Do you believe it is wise to post personal information about yourself?
===========================================
Dear Derek1148,
First and foremost., one of my goals is to get across that there are real people behind these screens. Without that awareness we become a bit like bomber pilots with the ability to destroy without having to directly witness the devastation we cause, or perhaps, even more apropos, we become like video game players who live in a solipsistic virtual fighter pilot universe that includes noone but the self.
I do see your point, however, and in many circumstances would deem it unwise.
Suffice it to say, however, that I believe wisdom to be relative and contextual.
Best,
Raphie
=======================================================
=======================================================
P.S. Let's just let this go, okay? If one can get suspended from this forum for simply stating mathematical facts, who knows what wrath I may incur for actually voicing that which I would be first to acknowledge as an opinion, however morally held...
You got it! I agree that online reputations are important to defend. That’s why I don’t use my real name. IMHO, you shouldn’t be banned, if you can prove you are correct, or able to accept it when you're not, and never for just giving your opinion. If so, I'm next...
Best,
Best,
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+Sep 17 2010, 03:35 AM)
Hey NA, here is a repost from a "read-only" section of the site that I can not properly quote, but the same manner of issues were involved then as now...
=======================================================
=======================================================
Posted: Oct 3 2008, 02:36 AM
QUOTE (Derek1148 @ Sep 8 2008, 02:00 AM)
===========================================
Raphie Frank,
Do you believe it is wise to post personal information about yourself?
===========================================
Dear Derek1148,
First and foremost., one of my goals is to get across that there are real people behind these screens. Without that awareness we become a bit like bomber pilots with the ability to destroy without having to directly witness the devastation we cause, or perhaps, even more apropos, we become like video game players who live in a solipsistic virtual fighter pilot universe that includes noone but the self.
I do see your point, however, and in many circumstances would deem it unwise.
Suffice it to say, however, that I believe wisdom to be relative and contextual.
Best,
Raphie
=======================================================
=======================================================
P.S. Let's just let this go, okay? If one can get suspended from this forum for simply stating mathematical facts, who knows what wrath I may incur for actually voicing that which I would be first to acknowledge as an opinion, however morally held...
I still don't believe it is wise. But I suppose the risk is minimal.
=======================================================
=======================================================
Posted: Oct 3 2008, 02:36 AM
QUOTE (Derek1148 @ Sep 8 2008, 02:00 AM)
===========================================
Raphie Frank,
Do you believe it is wise to post personal information about yourself?
===========================================
Dear Derek1148,
First and foremost., one of my goals is to get across that there are real people behind these screens. Without that awareness we become a bit like bomber pilots with the ability to destroy without having to directly witness the devastation we cause, or perhaps, even more apropos, we become like video game players who live in a solipsistic virtual fighter pilot universe that includes noone but the self.
I do see your point, however, and in many circumstances would deem it unwise.
Suffice it to say, however, that I believe wisdom to be relative and contextual.
Best,
Raphie
=======================================================
=======================================================
P.S. Let's just let this go, okay? If one can get suspended from this forum for simply stating mathematical facts, who knows what wrath I may incur for actually voicing that which I would be first to acknowledge as an opinion, however morally held...
I still don't believe it is wise. But I suppose the risk is minimal.
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+Sep 16 2010, 10:20 PM)
From the anti-crackpot Index...
#27 20 points for using an anonymous pseudonym when your opponent is using their real name.
I was hoping that you saw the humor in what you posted, but unfortunately you seem to be taking it seriously. This brings me to my second point:
It is NEVER a good idea to post your real name online outside of a professional context. Sorry Ralphie, you're not a professional... what are you doing here exactly?
Anyway, there is an entire online encyclopedia devoted to people who do stupid things online: encyclopediadramatica.com
On the other hand, if you consider your... "contributions" here to be in the interest of your professional career, then god help you.
#27 20 points for using an anonymous pseudonym when your opponent is using their real name.
I was hoping that you saw the humor in what you posted, but unfortunately you seem to be taking it seriously. This brings me to my second point:
QUOTE
Cheers,
RAPHIE FRANK
917-202-2610
P.S. For the pedantishly oriented, my actual full name is "Stephen Raphael Frank"
RAPHIE FRANK
917-202-2610
P.S. For the pedantishly oriented, my actual full name is "Stephen Raphael Frank"
It is NEVER a good idea to post your real name online outside of a professional context. Sorry Ralphie, you're not a professional... what are you doing here exactly?
Anyway, there is an entire online encyclopedia devoted to people who do stupid things online: encyclopediadramatica.com
On the other hand, if you consider your... "contributions" here to be in the interest of your professional career, then god help you.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 17 2010, 01:26 PM)
I was hoping that you saw the humor in what you posted, but unfortunately you seem to be taking it seriously.
The Anti-Crackpot Index is "fun," FB and should not be taken any more seriously, in my view, than the Crackpot index, which far too many take far too seriously. But the reason that Anti-Crackpot Index "needed" writing is quite serious.
What happens upon this forum in terms of the absurdity of human conduct is just a microcosm, however transformed, of what happens with the pros. This is not a statement I make lacking any insight because I have corresponded with quite a few alternative physicists, not for "fun" but because one day I hope to write a dissertation or thesis on the Sociology of Science.
The average Joe or Jane, including myself, is not qualified to judge if a theoretical physicist is cutting edge, a flat out loon, or maybe a touch of both. But they are, on the other hand, qualified to judge if a Raphie Frank or someone similar to a Raphie Frank is "stupid," a "liar" etc. etc.
When people "out there" see what happens upon this forum to such as myself for, for instance, suggesting in not so many words that mathematics inherently requires an observer and is thus a process performed through time and therefore 4 dimensional in nature, it can help to highlight for them that the issues involved on the higher levels are not scientific, but human.
Here is an excerpt from a recent email I wrote a reporter who may or may not write a story on censorship within the scientific community...
=======================================================
In the Information Age, all it takes is one "Anti-Crackpot" with power (or the power to influence others around him or her...) to stop or subvert (via re-classification) the gates of information flow. And as water is to physical life, the dissemination of ideas is to the intellectual life of the scientist. I honestly don't see how the intellectual, even if metaphorical, "killing" (or "maiming") of cutting edge scientists (or anyone else for that matter...) can have anything but a detrimental impact upon scientific advancement.
=======================================================
Best,
Raphie
P.S. One of the flaws of that index I posted, IMHO, is that it takes rather thinly veiled "shots" at specific physicists such as Lubos Motl and Peter Woit.
The Anti-Crackpot Index is "fun," FB and should not be taken any more seriously, in my view, than the Crackpot index, which far too many take far too seriously. But the reason that Anti-Crackpot Index "needed" writing is quite serious.
What happens upon this forum in terms of the absurdity of human conduct is just a microcosm, however transformed, of what happens with the pros. This is not a statement I make lacking any insight because I have corresponded with quite a few alternative physicists, not for "fun" but because one day I hope to write a dissertation or thesis on the Sociology of Science.
The average Joe or Jane, including myself, is not qualified to judge if a theoretical physicist is cutting edge, a flat out loon, or maybe a touch of both. But they are, on the other hand, qualified to judge if a Raphie Frank or someone similar to a Raphie Frank is "stupid," a "liar" etc. etc.
When people "out there" see what happens upon this forum to such as myself for, for instance, suggesting in not so many words that mathematics inherently requires an observer and is thus a process performed through time and therefore 4 dimensional in nature, it can help to highlight for them that the issues involved on the higher levels are not scientific, but human.
Here is an excerpt from a recent email I wrote a reporter who may or may not write a story on censorship within the scientific community...
=======================================================
In the Information Age, all it takes is one "Anti-Crackpot" with power (or the power to influence others around him or her...) to stop or subvert (via re-classification) the gates of information flow. And as water is to physical life, the dissemination of ideas is to the intellectual life of the scientist. I honestly don't see how the intellectual, even if metaphorical, "killing" (or "maiming") of cutting edge scientists (or anyone else for that matter...) can have anything but a detrimental impact upon scientific advancement.
=======================================================
Best,
Raphie
P.S. One of the flaws of that index I posted, IMHO, is that it takes rather thinly veiled "shots" at specific physicists such as Lubos Motl and Peter Woit.
QUOTE ( Raphie Frank+)
What happens upon this forum in terms of the absurdity of human conduct is just a microcosm, however transformed, of what happens with the pros. This is not a statement I make lacking any insight because I have corresponded with quite a few alternative physicists, not for "fun" but because one day I hope to write a dissertation or thesis on the Sociology of Science.
I’m extremely curious about everything. I always want information. I was grocery shopping last week, and an older gentleman, who said he was ninety one, started up a conversation with me. He was telling me that at his age, most everyone he knew had passed away. I could tell he was lonely, so I took advantage, and asked a few questions. He knew so much about our local history. We talked for about an hour. I wanted to invite him for dinner but it would have been a little awkward. Sometimes my curiosity is not socially acceptable. I have to be careful that it isn’t misconstrued as prying into the affairs of others with the intentions of gaining some type of emotional security for myself.
Not only has this been difficult, but finding the correct answers to my never ending questions has been a huge challenge. It’s hard to know which experts to trust. Everyone believes that in order to be accepted they have to “talk the talk.” Freeman Dyson is a good example.
How am I, as a layman, supposed to determine who is correct, or an expert in their field? No one is expected to know every answer. What happened to the value of “I don’t know”? Has it become an outdated phrase? The world is filled with “know it alls” who pretend they are experts in science. It’s funny how you don’t find many physicists pretending to be an economist, or mathematicians pretending to be brain surgeons, but many people mistake their intuition for valid scientific arguments.
One thing that irks the crap out of me is how the scientific community deals with the public. IMHO, if they want funding, and a chance at recognition, they need to answer our questions, and let us have access to the published peer reviewed papers. This seems like the obvious solution to weeding out nonsense. I also feel that it is imperative to never allow any one group to hold all the power. I realize that there has to be some direction for curiosity, but I don’t want scientists to be the new enforcers over my natural inquisitiveness. I don’t want them to be the only ones defining the questions worth asking and the answer worth getting.
My doctor is just a family practitioner, but I once asked him a difficult question, and he said “I don’t know, but I’ll help you find out”. Now, I know that he will never give me some bullѕhit answer for the sake of his ego. I also asked brucep a math question about group theory. He said “What makes you think that I know the answer? I don’t.” Now, I trust him and respect him.
I think that the sociology of scientific knowledge is very interesting, and an important contribution, but then again, “I don’t know”…
N/A
I’m extremely curious about everything. I always want information. I was grocery shopping last week, and an older gentleman, who said he was ninety one, started up a conversation with me. He was telling me that at his age, most everyone he knew had passed away. I could tell he was lonely, so I took advantage, and asked a few questions. He knew so much about our local history. We talked for about an hour. I wanted to invite him for dinner but it would have been a little awkward. Sometimes my curiosity is not socially acceptable. I have to be careful that it isn’t misconstrued as prying into the affairs of others with the intentions of gaining some type of emotional security for myself.
Not only has this been difficult, but finding the correct answers to my never ending questions has been a huge challenge. It’s hard to know which experts to trust. Everyone believes that in order to be accepted they have to “talk the talk.” Freeman Dyson is a good example.
How am I, as a layman, supposed to determine who is correct, or an expert in their field? No one is expected to know every answer. What happened to the value of “I don’t know”? Has it become an outdated phrase? The world is filled with “know it alls” who pretend they are experts in science. It’s funny how you don’t find many physicists pretending to be an economist, or mathematicians pretending to be brain surgeons, but many people mistake their intuition for valid scientific arguments.
One thing that irks the crap out of me is how the scientific community deals with the public. IMHO, if they want funding, and a chance at recognition, they need to answer our questions, and let us have access to the published peer reviewed papers. This seems like the obvious solution to weeding out nonsense. I also feel that it is imperative to never allow any one group to hold all the power. I realize that there has to be some direction for curiosity, but I don’t want scientists to be the new enforcers over my natural inquisitiveness. I don’t want them to be the only ones defining the questions worth asking and the answer worth getting.
My doctor is just a family practitioner, but I once asked him a difficult question, and he said “I don’t know, but I’ll help you find out”. Now, I know that he will never give me some bullѕhit answer for the sake of his ego. I also asked brucep a math question about group theory. He said “What makes you think that I know the answer? I don’t.” Now, I trust him and respect him.
I think that the sociology of scientific knowledge is very interesting, and an important contribution, but then again, “I don’t know”…
N/A
Raphie,
- An Anti-Crackpot index, compiled by none other than the lousey psychotic idiot Phil Gibbs (who 'apparently' established that insane hand-drawn diagrams,/bollocks math abomination, of a delusional filth-pit journal "viXra").
Exhibit A
What fathomless depths will you plummet to before you come to terms with;- that really you're the complete deluded imbecile? .... and that's being immensely compassionate.
Go crawl back to your micro-cosmic fantasy world, and stay there!, you shocking assburp.
ps;- just wait to rpenner and Alphanumeric get back - you're toast!
- An Anti-Crackpot index, compiled by none other than the lousey psychotic idiot Phil Gibbs (who 'apparently' established that insane hand-drawn diagrams,/bollocks math abomination, of a delusional filth-pit journal "viXra").Exhibit A
What fathomless depths will you plummet to before you come to terms with;- that really you're the complete deluded imbecile? .... and that's being immensely compassionate.
Go crawl back to your micro-cosmic fantasy world, and stay there!, you shocking assburp.
ps;- just wait to rpenner and Alphanumeric get back - you're toast!
Fivedoughnut,
You’re somewhat entertaining. Just of curiosity, from another thread, do you know how to start a fire from scratch?
N/A
You’re somewhat entertaining. Just of curiosity, from another thread, do you know how to start a fire from scratch?
N/A
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Sep 17 2010, 04:54 PM)
Fivedoughnut,
You’re somewhat entertaining. Just of curiosity, from another thread, do you know how to start a fire from scratch?
N/A
Easy, I just scratch a match.
You’re somewhat entertaining. Just of curiosity, from another thread, do you know how to start a fire from scratch?
N/A
Easy, I just scratch a match.
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+Sep 17 2010, 10:13 AM)
The Anti-Crackpot Index is "fun," FB and should not be taken any more seriously, in my view, than the Crackpot index, which far too many take far too seriously. But the reason that Anti-Crackpot Index "needed" writing is quite serious.
What happens upon this forum in terms of the absurdity of human conduct is just a microcosm, however transformed, of what happens with the pros. This is not a statement I make lacking any insight because I have corresponded with quite a few alternative physicists, not for "fun" but because one day I hope to write a dissertation or thesis on the Sociology of Science.
Crackpots are labeled crackpots not because of their ideas, but because of their methods. If you don't "do" science, you don't get to contribute to the scientific process.
I might not be able to judge the science, but obvious gaps in methodology are... obvious.
I might not be able to judge the science, but obvious gaps in methodology are... obvious.
When people "out there" see what happens upon this forum to such as myself for, for instance, suggesting in not so many words that mathematics inherently requires an observer and is thus a process performed through time and therefore 4 dimensional in nature, it can help to highlight for them that the issues involved on the higher levels are not scientific, but human.
I have yet to see anything that you have posted that:
a: builds upon previous works
b: allows itself to be built upon
c: has any relevance outside of idle speculation
Your concerns only stem out of your own failure to find credibility. I don't know who the two people you mentioned are, but it is not hard to find scientists who have gone "off the rail." It's really not a huge concern. If you want to find a bone to pick, look at how funding gets allotted to medical research or the refusal of the American government to fund stem cell research.
Your concerns only stem out of your own failure to find credibility. I don't know who the two people you mentioned are, but it is not hard to find scientists who have gone "off the rail." It's really not a huge concern. If you want to find a bone to pick, look at how funding gets allotted to medical research or the refusal of the American government to fund stem cell research.
Now I have a huge problem with your statement to this guy. Who are you to say what issues he can complain about, or if he has just cause to feel the way he does? You think whats important to you should be important to him as well?
And I agree with this, any scientist that tries alternative explanations for unexplained things gets labeled "crackpot". Once before here I brought up a couple supergravity theories, and everyone went nuts. It took me railing for hours to get anyone to try to explain to my why that paper was wrong.. and even then nobody addressed the papers addressing gravitational lensing at all.
Now it may be that those theories are just wrong, thats not the problem.. the problem is people expect me to just take their word for it and not try to answer my questions...
Thats when I get angry, at least the people that don't want to fund stem cell research tell you exactly why in no uncertain terms. Some "scientists" have absolutely no respect for the "layman" that finances their projects by the sweat of their brow and strength of their backs.
You must admit among PHD's there is a sort of "i'm better than you" mentality.. or "its that way because I say so" which I just read as... "I'm too dang lazy to explain it, or I can't explain it its just not the IN theory right now"
What happens upon this forum in terms of the absurdity of human conduct is just a microcosm, however transformed, of what happens with the pros. This is not a statement I make lacking any insight because I have corresponded with quite a few alternative physicists, not for "fun" but because one day I hope to write a dissertation or thesis on the Sociology of Science.
Crackpots are labeled crackpots not because of their ideas, but because of their methods. If you don't "do" science, you don't get to contribute to the scientific process.
QUOTE
The average Joe or Jane, including myself, is not qualified to judge if a theoretical physicist is cutting edge, a flat out loon, or maybe a touch of both. But they are, on the other hand, qualified to judge if a Raphie Frank or someone similar to a Raphie Frank is "stupid," a "liar" etc. etc.
I might not be able to judge the science, but obvious gaps in methodology are... obvious.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The average Joe or Jane, including myself, is not qualified to judge if a theoretical physicist is cutting edge, a flat out loon, or maybe a touch of both. But they are, on the other hand, qualified to judge if a Raphie Frank or someone similar to a Raphie Frank is "stupid," a "liar" etc. etc. |
I might not be able to judge the science, but obvious gaps in methodology are... obvious.
When people "out there" see what happens upon this forum to such as myself for, for instance, suggesting in not so many words that mathematics inherently requires an observer and is thus a process performed through time and therefore 4 dimensional in nature, it can help to highlight for them that the issues involved on the higher levels are not scientific, but human.
I have yet to see anything that you have posted that:
a: builds upon previous works
b: allows itself to be built upon
c: has any relevance outside of idle speculation
QUOTE
Here is an excerpt from a recent email I wrote a reporter who may or may not write a story on censorship within the scientific community...
=======================================================
In the Information Age, all it takes is one "Anti-Crackpot" with power (or the power to influence others around him or her...) to stop or subvert (via re-classification) the gates of information flow. And as water is to physical life, the dissemination of ideas is to the intellectual life of the scientist. I honestly don't see how the intellectual, even if metaphorical, "killing" (or "maiming") of cutting edge scientists (or anyone else for that matter...) can have anything but a detrimental impact upon scientific advancement.
=======================================================
Best,
Raphie
P.S. One of the flaws of that index I posted, IMHO, is that it takes rather thinly veiled "shots" at specific physicists such as Lubos Motl and Peter Woit.
=======================================================
In the Information Age, all it takes is one "Anti-Crackpot" with power (or the power to influence others around him or her...) to stop or subvert (via re-classification) the gates of information flow. And as water is to physical life, the dissemination of ideas is to the intellectual life of the scientist. I honestly don't see how the intellectual, even if metaphorical, "killing" (or "maiming") of cutting edge scientists (or anyone else for that matter...) can have anything but a detrimental impact upon scientific advancement.
=======================================================
Best,
Raphie
P.S. One of the flaws of that index I posted, IMHO, is that it takes rather thinly veiled "shots" at specific physicists such as Lubos Motl and Peter Woit.
Your concerns only stem out of your own failure to find credibility. I don't know who the two people you mentioned are, but it is not hard to find scientists who have gone "off the rail." It's really not a huge concern. If you want to find a bone to pick, look at how funding gets allotted to medical research or the refusal of the American government to fund stem cell research.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 17 2010, 10:29 AM)
If you want to find a bone to pick, look at how funding gets allotted to medical research or the refusal of the American government to fund stem cell research.
Good point! He should use his skills more constructively. He is a good writer and "The pen is mightier than the sword.”
Good point! He should use his skills more constructively. He is a good writer and "The pen is mightier than the sword.”
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 17 2010, 05:29 PM)
Your concerns only stem out of your own failure to find credibility. I don't know who the two people you mentioned are, but it is not hard to find scientists who have gone "off the rail." It's really not a huge concern. If you want to find a bone to pick, look at how funding gets allotted to medical research or the refusal of the American government to fund stem cell research.
Now I have a huge problem with your statement to this guy. Who are you to say what issues he can complain about, or if he has just cause to feel the way he does? You think whats important to you should be important to him as well?
And I agree with this, any scientist that tries alternative explanations for unexplained things gets labeled "crackpot". Once before here I brought up a couple supergravity theories, and everyone went nuts. It took me railing for hours to get anyone to try to explain to my why that paper was wrong.. and even then nobody addressed the papers addressing gravitational lensing at all.
Now it may be that those theories are just wrong, thats not the problem.. the problem is people expect me to just take their word for it and not try to answer my questions...
Thats when I get angry, at least the people that don't want to fund stem cell research tell you exactly why in no uncertain terms. Some "scientists" have absolutely no respect for the "layman" that finances their projects by the sweat of their brow and strength of their backs.
You must admit among PHD's there is a sort of "i'm better than you" mentality.. or "its that way because I say so" which I just read as... "I'm too dang lazy to explain it, or I can't explain it its just not the IN theory right now"
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+)
One thing that irks the crap out of me is how the scientific community deals with the public. IMHO, if they want funding, and a chance at recognition, they need to answer our questions, and let us have access to the published peer reviewed papers.
A while back the forum did seem to have an insider (yquantum) at Fermilab who fished out many obscure papers for those of us who were interested.
Then came the 'Forum Mafia' (Fivedoughnut and his cronies)
Sample feedback for yquantum:-
NEONOM Posted: Sep 17 2008, 08:23 PM
Negative Fraud and friend of RseCrack the other fraud around here
N O M Posted: Aug 24 2008, 02:24 AM
Negative -
inQZtive Posted: Jul 28 2008, 03:53 PM
Negative fraud
play right next time
N O M Posted: Jul 26 2008, 09:37 AM
Negative -
N O M Posted: Jul 15 2008, 04:26 AM
Negative -
<Max> Posted: May 15 2008, 03:05 AM
Negative -
<Max> Posted: May 6 2008, 12:15 AM
Negative -
TheDoc Posted: Apr 13 2008, 08:25 PM
Negative -
N O M Posted: Feb 24 2008, 07:45 AM
Negative Happy Neg Day
N O M Posted: Feb 15 2008, 12:54 AM
Negative -
yquantum stopped posting - I don't think he/she can be blamed for that.
-C2.
A while back the forum did seem to have an insider (yquantum) at Fermilab who fished out many obscure papers for those of us who were interested.
Then came the 'Forum Mafia' (Fivedoughnut and his cronies)
Sample feedback for yquantum:-
NEONOM Posted: Sep 17 2008, 08:23 PM
Negative Fraud and friend of RseCrack the other fraud around here
N O M Posted: Aug 24 2008, 02:24 AM
Negative -
inQZtive Posted: Jul 28 2008, 03:53 PM
Negative fraud
play right next time
N O M Posted: Jul 26 2008, 09:37 AM
Negative -
N O M Posted: Jul 15 2008, 04:26 AM
Negative -
<Max> Posted: May 15 2008, 03:05 AM
Negative -
<Max> Posted: May 6 2008, 12:15 AM
Negative -
TheDoc Posted: Apr 13 2008, 08:25 PM
Negative -
N O M Posted: Feb 24 2008, 07:45 AM
Negative Happy Neg Day
N O M Posted: Feb 15 2008, 12:54 AM
Negative -
yquantum stopped posting - I don't think he/she can be blamed for that.
-C2.
QUOTE (dhcracker+Sep 17 2010, 04:37 PM)
Now I have a huge problem with your statement to this guy. Who are you to say what issues he can complain about, or if he has just cause to feel the way he does? You think whats important to you should be important to him as well?
He's complaining about a non-existent problem.
You don't understand how science works at all. Theories don't start with "I wonder if..." They start with evidence. Find evidence that doesn't match existing theories, and go from there. "Alternative explanations" are pretty much useless. Find where the original explanation fails and exploit it.
You don't understand how science works at all. Theories don't start with "I wonder if..." They start with evidence. Find evidence that doesn't match existing theories, and go from there. "Alternative explanations" are pretty much useless. Find where the original explanation fails and exploit it.
Now it may be that those theories are just wrong, thats not the problem.. the problem is people expect me to just take their word for it and not try to answer my questions...
Your theories are wrong because you didn't do the work. In math class, the teacher has the students show their work so the teacher can tell them where they went wrong. If the student just writes down the wrong answer and demands to know why he is wrong, where does that leave the teacher?
Really? You think that banning research on the quasi-moral opinions of a few individuals is just? How about the fact that researchers are moving out of this country because of these laws? American medical technology will fall behind if we don't keep up with the research.
Really? You think that banning research on the quasi-moral opinions of a few individuals is just? How about the fact that researchers are moving out of this country because of these laws? American medical technology will fall behind if we don't keep up with the research.
You must admit among PHD's there is a sort of "i'm better than you" mentality.. or "its that way because I say so" which I just read as... "I'm too dang lazy to explain it, or I can't explain it its just not the IN theory right now"
Why do you think it takes so long to earn a PhD? 10 years of study goes into these degrees, and that's just to get into the profession. The explanation for the theory would take months to explain to a layman. THAT is why PhD's brush off foolish questions; they don't have the time to explain it.
He's complaining about a non-existent problem.
QUOTE
And I agree with this, any scientist that tries alternative explanations for unexplained things gets labeled "crackpot". Once before here I brought up a couple supergravity theories, and everyone went nuts. It took me railing for hours to get anyone to try to explain to my why that paper was wrong.. and even then nobody addressed the papers addressing gravitational lensing at all.
You don't understand how science works at all. Theories don't start with "I wonder if..." They start with evidence. Find evidence that doesn't match existing theories, and go from there. "Alternative explanations" are pretty much useless. Find where the original explanation fails and exploit it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And I agree with this, any scientist that tries alternative explanations for unexplained things gets labeled "crackpot". Once before here I brought up a couple supergravity theories, and everyone went nuts. It took me railing for hours to get anyone to try to explain to my why that paper was wrong.. and even then nobody addressed the papers addressing gravitational lensing at all. |
You don't understand how science works at all. Theories don't start with "I wonder if..." They start with evidence. Find evidence that doesn't match existing theories, and go from there. "Alternative explanations" are pretty much useless. Find where the original explanation fails and exploit it.
Now it may be that those theories are just wrong, thats not the problem.. the problem is people expect me to just take their word for it and not try to answer my questions...
Your theories are wrong because you didn't do the work. In math class, the teacher has the students show their work so the teacher can tell them where they went wrong. If the student just writes down the wrong answer and demands to know why he is wrong, where does that leave the teacher?
QUOTE
Thats when I get angry, at least the people that don't want to fund stem cell research tell you exactly why in no uncertain terms. Some "scientists" have absolutely no respect for the "layman" that finances their projects by the sweat of their brow and strength of their backs.
Really? You think that banning research on the quasi-moral opinions of a few individuals is just? How about the fact that researchers are moving out of this country because of these laws? American medical technology will fall behind if we don't keep up with the research.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Thats when I get angry, at least the people that don't want to fund stem cell research tell you exactly why in no uncertain terms. Some "scientists" have absolutely no respect for the "layman" that finances their projects by the sweat of their brow and strength of their backs. |
Really? You think that banning research on the quasi-moral opinions of a few individuals is just? How about the fact that researchers are moving out of this country because of these laws? American medical technology will fall behind if we don't keep up with the research.
You must admit among PHD's there is a sort of "i'm better than you" mentality.. or "its that way because I say so" which I just read as... "I'm too dang lazy to explain it, or I can't explain it its just not the IN theory right now"
Why do you think it takes so long to earn a PhD? 10 years of study goes into these degrees, and that's just to get into the profession. The explanation for the theory would take months to explain to a layman. THAT is why PhD's brush off foolish questions; they don't have the time to explain it.
@NymphaeaAlba
BIGGER is good but could (say) Google index it intelligently? If you have access to one person with intimate knowledge of (say) 500 papers and they know (say) ten people with intimate knowledge of another (say) 500 papers .. and each knows .. etc .. then you have an intelligent index. It requires goodwill all round .. throw a few Fivedoughnuts into the mix and you get nothing.
-C2.
BIGGER is good but could (say) Google index it intelligently? If you have access to one person with intimate knowledge of (say) 500 papers and they know (say) ten people with intimate knowledge of another (say) 500 papers .. and each knows .. etc .. then you have an intelligent index. It requires goodwill all round .. throw a few Fivedoughnuts into the mix and you get nothing.
-C2.
QUOTE (Confused1+)
A while back the forum did seem to have an insider (yquantum) at Fermilab who fished out many obscure papers for those of us who were interested.
I'm not positive, but I don't think that they are suppose to redistribute that information. I think that it violates the copyrights.
I'm not positive, but I don't think that they are suppose to redistribute that information. I think that it violates the copyrights.
Pass.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
You don't understand how science works at all.
You don't understand how constructive dialogue works. You and your buddies have perverted dialogue to the point where you give each other positive feedback for negative input.
-C2.
You don't understand how constructive dialogue works. You and your buddies have perverted dialogue to the point where you give each other positive feedback for negative input.
-C2.
QUOTE (Confused1+Sep 17 2010, 06:19 PM)
You don't understand how constructive dialogue works.
What would you consider to be "constructive dialog?" Patting each other on the back for your made-up theories? There has to be an objective standard. It is a fallacy to imagine that the truth must exist as a compromise between two extremes. The truth is that science is a process. If you don't want to us that process, then don't fancy yourself a scientist.
What would you consider to be "constructive dialog?" Patting each other on the back for your made-up theories? There has to be an objective standard. It is a fallacy to imagine that the truth must exist as a compromise between two extremes. The truth is that science is a process. If you don't want to us that process, then don't fancy yourself a scientist.
QUOTE (Confused1+Sep 17 2010, 08:53 PM)
A while back the forum did seem to have an insider (yquantum) at Fermilab who fished out many obscure papers for those of us who were interested.
Then came the 'Forum Mafia' (Fivedoughnut and his cronies)
...... so you really believed yquantum worked @ Fermilab?
Then came the 'Forum Mafia' (Fivedoughnut and his cronies)
...... so you really believed yquantum worked @ Fermilab?
QUOTE (fivedoughnut+)
...... so you really believed yquantum worked @ Fermilab
yquantum may not always have been the same person - I only knew the real identity of one 'yquantum'. The information is private - leaving you free to make up whatever nonsense you please.
-C2.
yquantum may not always have been the same person - I only knew the real identity of one 'yquantum'. The information is private - leaving you free to make up whatever nonsense you please.
-C2.
@Flyingbuttressman,
- An Anti-Crackpot index, compiled by none other than the lousey psychotic idiot Phil Gibbs (who 'apparently' established that insane hand-drawn diagrams,/bollocks math abomination, of a delusional filth-pit journal "viXra").
Exhibit A
Well said, Five Doughnut.
Just curious, but is your model for interaction with others that little girl in "The Exorcist"?
(Specifically I refer to that scene in the bedroom with the priest where she does that 360 with her head... If you've not seen it, I do highly recommend it as I think it would be great for you to see the Hollywoodified version of yourself up there on the big screen...)
QUOTE (Flyingbuttressman+)
What would you consider to be "constructive dialog?" Patting each other on the back for your made-up theories?
Looking at what we might agree to call the 'Forum Mafia':-
All can manage the insult - apparently the more insulting the better.
The brighter ones are capable of limited 'debate'.
None seem able to understand that if X doesn't understand (say) quantum mechanics then a response from (say) Alphanumeric will be of interest to anyone else with the same problem.
Alternatives to "patting each other on the back" (some you clearly know and some you clearly don't) :-
General teaching
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didactic_method
Example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Example
Socratic method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method
Debate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate
Discussion
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion
Allegory
http://www.answers.com/topic/allegory
Trial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial
Bullying
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying
-C2
Looking at what we might agree to call the 'Forum Mafia':-
All can manage the insult - apparently the more insulting the better.
The brighter ones are capable of limited 'debate'.
None seem able to understand that if X doesn't understand (say) quantum mechanics then a response from (say) Alphanumeric will be of interest to anyone else with the same problem.
Alternatives to "patting each other on the back" (some you clearly know and some you clearly don't) :-
General teaching
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didactic_method
Example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Example
Socratic method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method
Debate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate
Discussion
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion
Allegory
http://www.answers.com/topic/allegory
Trial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial
Bullying
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying
-C2
QUOTE (Confused1+Sep 18 2010, 03:22 PM)
yquantum may not always have been the same person - I only knew the real identity of one 'yquantum'.
Did he call himself "Ron" by any chance?
Ciao_.
Fivedoughnut aka "Ron" etc
.....
Did he call himself "Ron" by any chance?
Ciao_.
Fivedoughnut aka "Ron" etc
..... QUOTE (fivedoughnut_+Sep 17 2010, 04:40 PM)
- An Anti-Crackpot index, compiled by none other than the lousey psychotic idiot Phil Gibbs (who 'apparently' established that insane hand-drawn diagrams,/bollocks math abomination, of a delusional filth-pit journal "viXra").Exhibit A
Well said, Five Doughnut.
Just curious, but is your model for interaction with others that little girl in "The Exorcist"?
(Specifically I refer to that scene in the bedroom with the priest where she does that 360 with her head... If you've not seen it, I do highly recommend it as I think it would be great for you to see the Hollywoodified version of yourself up there on the big screen...)
QUOTE (Confused1+Sep 18 2010, 04:03 PM)
@Flyingbuttressman,
QUOTE (Flyingbuttressman+)
What would you consider to be "constructive dialog?" Patting each other on the back for your made-up theories?
Looking at what we might agree to call the 'Forum Mafia':-
All can manage the insult - apparently the more insulting the better.
The brighter ones are capable of limited 'debate'.
None seem able to understand that if X doesn't understand (say) quantum mechanics then a response from (say) Alphanumeric will be of interest to anyone else with the same problem.
Bullying
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying
-C2
Hey C2,
In regards to that last link you posted, here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia entry...
======================================================
Bullying is a form of abuse. It comprises repeated acts over time that involves a real or perceived imbalance of power with the more powerful individual or group abusing those who are less powerful.[2] The power imbalance may be social power and/or physical power. The victim of bullying is sometimes referred to as a target.
Bullying consists of three basic types of abuse – emotional, verbal and physical. It typically involves subtle methods of coercion such as psychological manipulation. Bullying can be defined in many different ways. Although the UK currently has no legal definition of bullying,[3] some US states have laws against it.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying
======================================================
Would it were that this forum were led by those as humanistically enlightened as they are in many other respects. Five Doughnut suggested that I would be "toast" when certain posters returned to this forum. Let us "pray," to whatever powers we may, that he will not be proven correct.
Best,
Raphie
Looking at what we might agree to call the 'Forum Mafia':-
All can manage the insult - apparently the more insulting the better.
The brighter ones are capable of limited 'debate'.
None seem able to understand that if X doesn't understand (say) quantum mechanics then a response from (say) Alphanumeric will be of interest to anyone else with the same problem.
Bullying
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying
-C2
Hey C2,
In regards to that last link you posted, here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia entry...
======================================================
Bullying is a form of abuse. It comprises repeated acts over time that involves a real or perceived imbalance of power with the more powerful individual or group abusing those who are less powerful.[2] The power imbalance may be social power and/or physical power. The victim of bullying is sometimes referred to as a target.
Bullying consists of three basic types of abuse – emotional, verbal and physical. It typically involves subtle methods of coercion such as psychological manipulation. Bullying can be defined in many different ways. Although the UK currently has no legal definition of bullying,[3] some US states have laws against it.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying
======================================================
Would it were that this forum were led by those as humanistically enlightened as they are in many other respects. Five Doughnut suggested that I would be "toast" when certain posters returned to this forum. Let us "pray," to whatever powers we may, that he will not be proven correct.
Best,
Raphie
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+Sep 18 2010, 04:46 PM)
Well said, Five Doughnut.
ThankQ
ThankQ
QUOTE ( Ridiculous Clown+)
Just curious, but is your model for interaction with others that little girl in "The Exorcist?"
Er, no ...... although, perhaps you and C2 should audition for "Dumberer and Dumbest - When Raphie met some gargantaun idiot from Plymouth" - as you've been method acting the parts for years.
Er, no ...... although, perhaps you and C2 should audition for "Dumberer and Dumbest - When Raphie met some gargantaun idiot from Plymouth" - as you've been method acting the parts for years.
A view from Lubos Motl on the topic of this thread...
================================================
Do crackpots and anti-crackpots essentially differ?
September 14, 2010
By Lubos Motl
Philip Gibbs wrote the rules of an entertaining Anti-Crackpot Index as a parody of John Baez's Crackpot Index. While Baez's index is designed to give lots of points to the likes of the LHC alarmist Luis Sancho or extraterrestrial abductee Jack Sarfatti - and, when generalized, a high score for self-described "seers" such as Lee Smolin - Gibbs' index is optimized for the likes of Peter Woit, John Horgan, and some of their apologists to excel...
Full Blog Posting here...
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/09/do-crack...-crackpots.html
================================================
Motl, it would seem, apparently has a higher regard for Philip Gibbs than does at least one poster upon this forum...
Best,
Raphie
================================================
Do crackpots and anti-crackpots essentially differ?
September 14, 2010
By Lubos Motl
Philip Gibbs wrote the rules of an entertaining Anti-Crackpot Index as a parody of John Baez's Crackpot Index. While Baez's index is designed to give lots of points to the likes of the LHC alarmist Luis Sancho or extraterrestrial abductee Jack Sarfatti - and, when generalized, a high score for self-described "seers" such as Lee Smolin - Gibbs' index is optimized for the likes of Peter Woit, John Horgan, and some of their apologists to excel...
Full Blog Posting here...
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/09/do-crack...-crackpots.html
================================================
Motl, it would seem, apparently has a higher regard for Philip Gibbs than does at least one poster upon this forum...
Best,
Raphie
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+Sep 18 2010, 08:33 PM)
Motl, it would seem, apparently has a higher regard for Philip Gibbs than does at least one poster upon this forum...
Best,
Raphie
So it would seem - so, what's your point?
Best,
Raphie
So it would seem - so, what's your point?
This is starting to get a little theatrical, don’t you think? I’m trying hard not to, but I’m starting to picture some of you as poltroons, and yes, that would make me the bully. And yes, if we were on a playground, I would want to punch you, and not to boost my self esteem, but just because some people enjoy causing irritation, and it pisses me off. You guys need to read up on the art of manliness. MAN UP...for crying out loud...
I'm not judging...
...I'm just saying!
P.S. PMSing? Possibly…
How Not to Be Annoying
I'm not judging...
...I'm just saying!P.S. PMSing? Possibly…
How Not to Be Annoying
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Sep 18 2010, 09:33 PM)
You guys need to read up on the art of manliness. MAN UP...for crying out loud...
Who says I'm a man? ..... might just be some pathetic voidbrained female.
Who says I'm a man? ..... might just be some pathetic voidbrained female.
Trust me. I can tell that you’re a man. I’ll spare you the details since you corrected my grammar...
Are you a rethinker fan now, and what makes you think that I was referring to you, Erik?
Are you a rethinker fan now, and what makes you think that I was referring to you, Erik?
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Sep 18 2010, 09:52 PM)
Are you a rethinker fan now?
I hate to see even the dumbest of insane idiots, hurt - although, I'd be extremely keen to put the poor imbecile out of his misery.
I hate to see even the dumbest of insane idiots, hurt - although, I'd be extremely keen to put the poor imbecile out of his misery.
Your editing skills - Hmm…a misogynist with chivalry...Intriguing!
QUOTE (NympheaeAlba+)
>>>>----Poltroon------>>
A barbed arrow indeed. I suggest we should all be allowed a few lines in our own defence.
My defence is a picture of Brigitte Bardot aged 70.
A barbed arrow indeed. I suggest we should all be allowed a few lines in our own defence.
My defence is a picture of Brigitte Bardot aged 70.
QUOTE (NympheaeAlba+)
How not to be annoying
Pass.
Pass.
QUOTE (Confused1+Sep 19 2010, 03:40 AM)
QUOTE (NympheaeAlba+)
>>>>----Poltroon------>>
A barbed arrow indeed. I suggest we should all be allowed a few lines in our own defence.
My defence is a picture of Brigitte Bardot aged 70.
Wow, C1-C2? Now, that is what I call a successful defense...I’m impressed!
A barbed arrow indeed. I suggest we should all be allowed a few lines in our own defence.
My defence is a picture of Brigitte Bardot aged 70.
Wow, C1-C2? Now, that is what I call a successful defense...I’m impressed!
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+Sep 14 2010, 11:51 PM)
The Anti-Crackpot Index
By Philip Gibbs
http://blog.vixra.org/2010/09/13/the-anti-crackpot-index/
RL]
As the originator of the index (first called "reactionary index") I wouldn't mind a mention on the page where this is stored.
I can't find my original post right now, but evidence of my creation of the index is at https://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics...e4f1c38a5c3de92
By Philip Gibbs
http://blog.vixra.org/2010/09/13/the-anti-crackpot-index/
RL]
As the originator of the index (first called "reactionary index") I wouldn't mind a mention on the page where this is stored.
I can't find my original post right now, but evidence of my creation of the index is at https://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics...e4f1c38a5c3de92
QUOTE (RayTomes+Jul 23 2011, 10:56 AM)
As the originator of the index (first called "reactionary index") I wouldn't mind a mention on the page where this is stored.
I can't find my original post right now...
Here is the original post
https://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics...10aca1fcb?hl=en
I had been thinking about the idea already when John Baez made a remark that I took up.
I can't find my original post right now...
Here is the original post
https://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics...10aca1fcb?hl=en
I had been thinking about the idea already when John Baez made a remark that I took up.
QUOTE
1) The cardinal sin. Saying that a new idea or theory is wrong because it disagrees with an existing theory. It can only be wrong if it disagrees with observation (5 points).
Damned to hell on point one. A new idea is wrong when it disagrees significantly with existing accepted theory where existing accepted theory is much closer to the observations of nature. Duh! If you are so deluded that you think the straw-man claim in point 1 is actually a significant factor in dismissing obvious crackpots on the basis of their own ludicrous claims, then you really know nothing about this science thing you play at.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 1) The cardinal sin. Saying that a new idea or theory is wrong because it disagrees with an existing theory. It can only be wrong if it disagrees with observation (5 points). |
Damned to hell on point one. A new idea is wrong when it disagrees significantly with existing accepted theory where existing accepted theory is much closer to the observations of nature. Duh! If you are so deluded that you think the straw-man claim in point 1 is actually a significant factor in dismissing obvious crackpots on the basis of their own ludicrous claims, then you really know nothing about this science thing you play at.
2) Argument from Authority. Saying that someone is wrong because Einstein (or whoever) said something different. (It is not an offence to quote what the authority said if it is a valid argument against the case as put) (5 points).
Mentioning famous people who are not connected with the matter at all (15 points) (The Sarfatti special).
2) Argument from Authority. Saying that someone is wrong because Einstein (or whoever) said something different. (It is not an offence to quote what the authority said if it is a valid argument against the case as put) (5 points).
Mentioning famous people who are not connected with the matter at all (15 points) (The Sarfatti special).
Einstein was right and Einstein was wrong, but when Einstein was right, he was really, really right. See rebuttal to point one. It's not an argument from authority when it's actually metonymy about the success of a scientist's theories to describe nature or the rigor of a particular mathematical result.
QUOTE
3) Namecalling. Mixed with logical arguments (or approximations thereof) 3 points per name with additional adjectives worth 2. (Note crackpot and such similar words are worth 5 as they are really a short form for cracked pot). Without any attempt at an argument, double these points.
Bacon wrote "Nature, in order to be mastered, must first be understood." The starting point of Baconian science is the classification of things and to every category is required a name.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 3) Namecalling. Mixed with logical arguments (or approximations thereof) 3 points per name with additional adjectives worth 2. (Note crackpot and such similar words are worth 5 as they are really a short form for cracked pot). Without any attempt at an argument, double these points. |
Bacon wrote "Nature, in order to be mastered, must first be understood." The starting point of Baconian science is the classification of things and to every category is required a name.
4) Unsubstantiated "You are wrongs". Each "you are wrong" without any evidence (2 points). Making susequent "you are wrong" posts still without evidence (5 points per post plus 5 per "y.a.w").
4) Unsubstantiated "You are wrongs". Each "you are wrong" without any evidence (2 points). Making susequent "you are wrong" posts still without evidence (5 points per post plus 5 per "y.a.w").
It's not our job to educate you when you have avoided learning the basics introduced in every country's primary educational system. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
QUOTE
5) "If that were so then surely it would have been noticed before?" and other such impossible arguments (5 points each).
Entirely appropriate in many cases. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence -- except when diligent search has well-covered the target area. Science has been going on for hundreds of years -- longer than you have been alive. When you invent a story about how Nature behaves and are ignorant of the types of searches being made, how can you dismiss the history of the search out of hand?QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 5) "If that were so then surely it would have been noticed before?" and other such impossible arguments (5 points each). |
Entirely appropriate in many cases. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence -- except when diligent search has well-covered the target area. Science has been going on for hundreds of years -- longer than you have been alive. When you invent a story about how Nature behaves and are ignorant of the types of searches being made, how can you dismiss the history of the search out of hand?
6) Stating that observations are wrong because they disagree with theory (5 points). (Note being suspicious is OK). For additional independant obsevations rejected, each scores double the previous points.
6) Stating that observations are wrong because they disagree with theory (5 points). (Note being suspicious is OK). For additional independant obsevations rejected, each scores double the previous points.
There are always outliers -- data points which don't cluster with the rest of the data. Some of these are simple probability at work, some are data of poor quality and some are evidence of physical phenomena. But since the quality of physical law is that it doesn't switch on and off depending on who is doing the experiment, quite a lot of observations can be dismissed as inferior sources of data when they require the laws of nature to be grossly different over a wide area already covered by observation. Indeed, with "N-rays", with all perpetual motion machine and free energy claims to date, with Miller's "ether drift", the "Fifth force" and the "Pioneer Anomaly" we have great examples of claimed observations that were judged dubious and that judgement was confirmed.
QUOTE
7) Discussing "fashionable" establishment theories as though they were facts when they have never made a verified prediction (5 points).
Further debating the finer points of them (10 points).
You seem to have a chip on your shoulder about other people actually advancing the state of human knowledge.Further debating the finer points of them (10 points).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 7) Discussing "fashionable" establishment theories as though they were facts when they have never made a verified prediction (5 points). Further debating the finer points of them (10 points). |
You seem to have a chip on your shoulder about other people actually advancing the state of human knowledge.
8) Application of theories (without stated reservations) well outside the known domain of the theory (5 points).
8) Application of theories (without stated reservations) well outside the known domain of the theory (5 points).
Huh?
QUOTE
9) Saying "Not even wrong" when specific verifiable predictions are possible (7 points) or actually made (12 points).
Huh?QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 9) Saying "Not even wrong" when specific verifiable predictions are possible (7 points) or actually made (12 points). |
Huh?
10) Saying "Too speculative" when verified predictions are included with the article (20 points). [This is aimed at certain moderators]
10) Saying "Too speculative" when verified predictions are included with the article (20 points). [This is aimed at certain moderators]
Ah, so you aren't listing general rules applicable to all. These types of insider references weaken what value can be had in discussing these talking points.
QUOTE
11) Saying "Read ...." rather than giving a reason for disagreeing (1 point per reference). (Only applies to disagreements).
Some people are generally ignorant on whole fields of subject matter. Reading, re-reading and doing the exercises in textbooks are the only methods demonstrated effective in getting a handle on General Relativity, Quantum Field Theory, several areas of mathematics, etc.
QUOTE (rpenner+Jul 24 2011, 06:40 AM)
Damned to hell on point one. A new idea is wrong when it disagrees significantly with existing accepted theory where existing accepted theory is much closer to the observations of nature. Duh! If you are so deluded that you think the straw-man claim in point 1 is actually a significant factor in dismissing obvious crackpots on the basis of their own ludicrous claims, then you really know nothing about this science thing you play at.
...
No, a new idea is wrong when it disagrees with observations. When two rival theories are being considered, you do not need to compare them to each other, but to compare each to observations. Your convoluted way of looking at this continues throughout your post. It is people like you that it was made to detect. It seems to have worked. :-)
Read again what was stated: "Saying that a new idea or theory is wrong because it disagrees with an existing theory. It can only be wrong if it disagrees with observation".
Does anyone know how to contact Phil Gibbs?
...
No, a new idea is wrong when it disagrees with observations. When two rival theories are being considered, you do not need to compare them to each other, but to compare each to observations. Your convoluted way of looking at this continues throughout your post. It is people like you that it was made to detect. It seems to have worked. :-)
Read again what was stated: "Saying that a new idea or theory is wrong because it disagrees with an existing theory. It can only be wrong if it disagrees with observation".
Does anyone know how to contact Phil Gibbs?
QUOTE (RayTomes+Jul 23 2011, 10:56 AM)
As the originator of the index (first called "reactionary index") I wouldn't mind a mention on the page where this is stored.
[EDIT]
I was unfairly critical of you, Ray, and deleted what I wrote previously. Just looked at your original post and the following caught my attention immediately...
9) Saying "Not even wrong"
Which is an allusion to Peter Woit's book of same name. From Gibbs index...
32. 30 points for saying something is “not even wrong”.
Still, his index has 37 points while yours has only 11. It is substantially his index (written as a reaction to a Google employee holding forth on subjects he knew nothing about) even if the initial idea, which was publicly stated by you first, influenced him either directly or indirectly.
Regardless, I am of the opinion that A ) Gibb's index very much needed writing, and B ) It needed to be written by one with standing in the eyes of his peers. Gibbs has that. Even Lubos Motl likes him.
- RF
[EDIT]
I was unfairly critical of you, Ray, and deleted what I wrote previously. Just looked at your original post and the following caught my attention immediately...
9) Saying "Not even wrong"
Which is an allusion to Peter Woit's book of same name. From Gibbs index...
32. 30 points for saying something is “not even wrong”.
Still, his index has 37 points while yours has only 11. It is substantially his index (written as a reaction to a Google employee holding forth on subjects he knew nothing about) even if the initial idea, which was publicly stated by you first, influenced him either directly or indirectly.
Regardless, I am of the opinion that A ) Gibb's index very much needed writing, and B ) It needed to be written by one with standing in the eyes of his peers. Gibbs has that. Even Lubos Motl likes him.
- RF
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+Jul 25 2011, 10:36 AM)
I was unfairly critical of you, Ray, and deleted what I wrote previously. Just looked at your original post and the following caught my attention immediately...
9) Saying "Not even wrong"
Which is an allusion to Peter Woit's book of same name. From Gibbs index...
Ralph thanks for the kind remarks.
Actually Peter Woit's book name and my reference to this are based on an original remark made by some famous QM person. It is an ultimate insult because it says that your theory is not wrong, because it is not coherent enough that it can be judged right or wrong. It was a common remark used by moderators of sci.physics.research in the mid 1990s, sometimes appropriately, sometimes not.
9) Saying "Not even wrong"
Which is an allusion to Peter Woit's book of same name. From Gibbs index...
Ralph thanks for the kind remarks.
Actually Peter Woit's book name and my reference to this are based on an original remark made by some famous QM person. It is an ultimate insult because it says that your theory is not wrong, because it is not coherent enough that it can be judged right or wrong. It was a common remark used by moderators of sci.physics.research in the mid 1990s, sometimes appropriately, sometimes not.
QUOTE (RayTomes+Jul 25 2011, 10:45 PM)
Ralph thanks for the kind remarks.
Actually Peter Woit's book name and my reference to this are based on an original remark made by some famous QM person. It is an ultimate insult because it says that your theory is not wrong, because it is not coherent enough that it can be judged right or wrong. It was a common remark used by moderators of sci.physics.research in the mid 1990s, sometimes appropriately, sometimes not.
From anecdotal experience, Ray, and with a bit of tongue firmly in cheek, here is how to tell the difference between a "Crackpot" and an "Anti-Crackpot..."
1.
Crackpots make wild, unsubstantiated and "not even wrong" statements about Science.
Anti-Crackpots, on the other hand, make wild, unsubstantiated and "not even wrong" statements about People.
2.
(Feel free to add your own)
- RF
=====================================================
P.S.
To wit...
RF aka [Composited Comments]
A ) "Unbelievably Stupid Cretin" ( PERSON A )
B ) "Intimidating Delusional Troll" ( PERSON B )
C.1) "Unreliable Terrorist Liar" ( PERSON C )
But my real favorite is this one...
D) "Son of a Monkeyfu*ked Mom" ( PERSON D )
It's a bit like being called a "bit*h" or a "bast*rd". You can't really argue with it because it's the opinion of the person stating it. To that person it is "reality" and therefore most certainly "not even wrong." But, to accord the fairness I have rarely been accorded by (so it seems at least...) congenitally misguided Anti-Cranks, PERSON C could also be quoted...
C.2) "Well Meaning and Not-Stupid" (PERSON C)
Being human, and wishing to show a little balance here, I far prefer the descriptors associated with me by, for instance, a high ranking administrator at an Ivy League Institution at which I not so long ago took a couple classes:
E) "Multi-disciplinary in the best sense" (PERSON E)
=====================================================
Actually Peter Woit's book name and my reference to this are based on an original remark made by some famous QM person. It is an ultimate insult because it says that your theory is not wrong, because it is not coherent enough that it can be judged right or wrong. It was a common remark used by moderators of sci.physics.research in the mid 1990s, sometimes appropriately, sometimes not.
From anecdotal experience, Ray, and with a bit of tongue firmly in cheek, here is how to tell the difference between a "Crackpot" and an "Anti-Crackpot..."
1.
Crackpots make wild, unsubstantiated and "not even wrong" statements about Science.
Anti-Crackpots, on the other hand, make wild, unsubstantiated and "not even wrong" statements about People.
2.
(Feel free to add your own)
- RF
=====================================================
P.S.
To wit...
RF aka [Composited Comments]
A ) "Unbelievably Stupid Cretin" ( PERSON A )
B ) "Intimidating Delusional Troll" ( PERSON B )
C.1) "Unreliable Terrorist Liar" ( PERSON C )
But my real favorite is this one...
D) "Son of a Monkeyfu*ked Mom" ( PERSON D )
It's a bit like being called a "bit*h" or a "bast*rd". You can't really argue with it because it's the opinion of the person stating it. To that person it is "reality" and therefore most certainly "not even wrong." But, to accord the fairness I have rarely been accorded by (so it seems at least...) congenitally misguided Anti-Cranks, PERSON C could also be quoted...
C.2) "Well Meaning and Not-Stupid" (PERSON C)
Being human, and wishing to show a little balance here, I far prefer the descriptors associated with me by, for instance, a high ranking administrator at an Ivy League Institution at which I not so long ago took a couple classes:
E) "Multi-disciplinary in the best sense" (PERSON E)
=====================================================
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.